There are 2018 genders... and a bitch ain't one

#5641

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ If you had a choice to be trapped in an elevator with a SocJus, a Deepak Chopra fan or a Peterson fan, who would you pick?

I'd go with Chopra. With his mastery of QM, he could tunnel us out of the elevator.

#5642

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ If you had a choice to be trapped in an elevator with a SocJus, a Deepak Chopra fan or a Peterson fan, who would you pick?

I'd go with Chopra. With his mastery of QM, he could tunnel us out of the elevator.

#5643

I'd vote for the SocJus.

After 5 mins it's likely they would suffer a panic attack, then fall into a sugar coma.

#5644

MarcusAu wrote: ↑ It would be interesting to hear from Petersen what (if any) is the scientific basis of Jungian psychology.

Yep, the scientific basis for things like the collective unconscious is probably non existent , except ,as with a lot of Jung
as useful descriptive metaphor: eg anima, animus etc
same for Freud, whose contribution to the world was , as I read once, more to literature than science with terms like ego etc than we use in everyday speech.

But Peterson worships Jung as useful while emphasising Freud's obvious limitations, though for example he alludes to the Oedipal theory , at least in one talk I saw online.

#5645

John D wrote: ↑ Question - updated: "Dr. Pterson, I believe that religion is a human creation that helps us understand our hidden sub-conscious mind and complex emotions and that there is really nothing supernatural involved. Can you comment on this idea?"

Why not just go with "Dr. Peterson, do you believe Jesus was a factual historical person who literally died and returned to life?"

Then when he replies with "depends on what you mean by 'factual historical' and 'literally" you remove an envelope with those words written in it and get someone to read it out. Viola!

#5646

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:
If you had a choice to be trapped in an elevator with a SocJus, a Deepak Chopra fan or a Peterson fan, who would you pick?

InfraRedBucket wrote: None of them, if they made an awkward pass at 4am and I didnt fancy them. Continued Page 94.....

But at least the Peterson fan would have a clean hotel room to go back to for coffee..

#5647

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑ TW: Puke-inducing SJW self flagellation/humble bragging:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... hanged-me/

I've come to the realization that, not only is Pat Green the condensation of all SJW vices into one human, he is pathologically, mentally ill on a Dan-Arel level.

Once he was lost , but now he is found! Hallelujah and praise Riley Dennis.

Over the years I organically changed in my view of gender and sexuality. I used to just see 2 genders and had a limited view on sexual orientation. What I discovered was an almost unlimited and beautiful spectrum far more interesting that what I had initially perceived.
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... lGvbFib.99

You can take the church out of the born again bozo, but you can't take the born again out of the bozo.

#5648

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑ I am formulating a question and it is something like this...

"I am what most people would call a hard atheist. I obviously can't prove there is nothing supernatural, but without proof of the supernatural I live my life under the assumption that the supernatural is not real. My belief is that people have such a hard time understanding their sub-conscious mind and their emotions that religion becomes an obvious though still false explanation. Religion is really a tool to help us model our sub-conscious mind. What are your thoughts about this idea?"
Peterson's always banging on about how religion institutionalizes our values, meanings, purpose, etc., and how if you delete religion you're left with just nihilism. I'll concede that a lot of people, especially young people, are nihilistic nowadays. But what should atheists do? We're not gonna pretend as if God exists. (And Pascal was an idiot.) Religion is moribund, that was inevitable, and on the whole, we're far better off not wasting time trying to appease or commune with deities -- and certainly not killing each other over how to appease which deities. So what's the replacement?
There are plenty of replacements, some of which aren't much better than religions (like the SocJus). People aren't becoming nihilistic, they're simply inventing new irrational schemes to simplify reality into a narrative. Peterson is a hack.
Peterson is getting rich selling common-sense advice to the rudderless. He's also a articulate (mostly) and useful foil against SocJus. I think he's very relatable for people that haven't already firmed up their opinions, and hack is very debatable. People seem to need to hear what he's saying. A father-figure for the philosophically wandering.

If you had a choice to be trapped in an elevator with a SocJus, a Deepak Chopra fan or a Peterson fan, who would you pick?

I think a bunch of what Peterson says are "just so" stories... but... it is refreshing, and I think correct, to say that our moral foundations are based on mythic themes. That these mythic themes and stories are necessary to create an integrated culture. I think many people don't believe this. I know tons of atheists who somehow think atheism and secularism is enough to be the foundation of an ethical system. I think this is a remarkably stupid idea and entirely wrong. This kind of idea is rampant among the SJW, BLM, and #Metoo folks. These people would run pell-mell into an ethical system where justice and truth has no value.

I know that asshole David Silverman at AA tells a story that he is not a "jewish-atheist" but that he is just an atheist and that this is how he builds his ethical system. What? That doesn't even make any sense. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a supernatural god. Atheism cannot drive any kind of ethical system.

And to be honest... I used this also think this way. I don't know what snapped me out of it. I think it was just my continuing interest in history.

I remember reading George Washington's farewell address where he famously says that America exists because we have a shared set of religious ethics and habits, etc. I used to think this was complete crap.... but I have since done a complete 180 on this.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.... Washington

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

So, to me, Peterson provides some insight and I think he is helping me become a better person. There was always a part of me that saw my life as having some kind of purpose or journey.... but I really can slip into a narcisistic funk.... and "that's really not good man! not good at all... eh!"

#5649

Shatterface wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑ On an adjacent Peterson-esque topic. I have been listening to Paradise Lost on audio book. It is fantastic. It is a weird blend of Pagan imagery, gods, and history combined with the Christ story. I would not want to try to read it however since it is a free format poem written in the 1600s.

I highly recommend it to anyone who likes the really old literature like Beowulf or the Odyssey.
Who's the narrator? There's a few versions available.

I have this version, but I do not really know if it is the best reading. I can say that it is well read and I am enjoying it.

#5650

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑

There are plenty of replacements, some of which aren't much better than religions (like the SocJus). People aren't becoming nihilistic, they're simply inventing new irrational schemes to simplify reality into a narrative. Peterson is a hack.

From any of the clips/interviews I've seen as well, Peterson doesnt reference Buddhism much.
But there you have a belief system that doesn't require theism (though has symbolic characters and has infiltrated strongly theistic societies as well as Western humanistic ones ) and a clear moral code. Also it is meant to be the "middle way " between the concept that everything will end (nihilism)
or will go on for ever (Eternalism)

#5651

John D wrote: ↑
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
I think a bunch of what Peterson says are "just so" stories... but... it is refreshing, and I think correct, to say that our moral foundations are based on mythic themes. That these mythic themes and stories are necessary to create an integrated culture. I think many people don't believe this. I know tons of atheists who somehow think atheism and secularism is enough to be the foundation of an ethical system. I think this is a remarkably stupid idea and entirely wrong. This kind of idea is rampant among the SJW, BLM, and #Metoo folks. These people would run pell-mell into an ethical system where justice and truth has no value.

I know that asshole David Silverman at AA tells a story that he is not a "jewish-atheist" but that he is just an atheist and that this is how he builds his ethical system. What? That doesn't even make any sense. Atheism is just a lack of belief in a supernatural god. Atheism cannot drive any kind of ethical system.

And to be honest... I used this also think this way. I don't know what snapped me out of it. I think it was just my continuing interest in history.

I remember reading George Washington's farewell address where he famously says that America exists because we have a shared set of religious ethics and habits, etc. I used to think this was complete crap.... but I have since done a complete 180 on this.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.... Washington
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

So, to me, Peterson provides some insight and I think he is helping me become a better person. There was always a part of me that saw my life as having some kind of purpose or journey.... but I really can slip into a narcisistic funk.... and "that's really not good man! not good at all... eh!"

and further...

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..... Washington

#5652

Well if Sam Harris is a christian because he is moral, then we might as well all declare ourselves christians.

And if belief in god is not relevent - we might as well all declare ourselves 'post-atheist'.

I read more of the Greek myths as a kid - but I don't think many would describe me as Hellinistic.

Stories are all around us - you don't have to take a religious, or agnostic view on the supernatural for them to have an influence.

#5653

You got to admire his improvisation skills. :clap:

#5654

I'm not sure why anyone needs to be a better person unless they were pretty shitty to begin with. I have absolutely no desire to improve myself morally. I don't go out of my way to harm others and that's good enough for me. If rather be smarter or happier. People who are smart and happy tend to behave more morally anyway. Stupid and angry people are responsible for most of the world's problems, particularly when they are under the delusion they are being good.

#5655

Madam, What a loverly Day!
What a loverly day for going up to a dyslexic transgender and saying:
" Are you TBGL?"

_100375698_dodd-shutterstock.jpg: (29.74 KiB) Downloaded 180 times

#5656

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ If you had a choice to be trapped in an elevator with a SocJus, a Deepak Chopra fan or a Peterson fan, who would you pick?

What if you have to cross a river in a rowing boat and there's only room for one passenger at a time and you can't leave the SocJus alone with Peterson as he'll be triggered? Who do you drown first, Chopra or the SocJus?

#5657

Madam, What a luverly Day!
What a Luverly day for going to a fancy dress party dressed as Gandhi and Stalin
and saying :
"I've come as a Red Indian, how's that for cultural appropriation?"

_100375698_dodd-shutterstock (1).jpg: (20.44 KiB) Downloaded 163 times

[/quote]

#5658

some guy wrote: ↑(Are you referring to a sort of "ghost in the machine" theory of consciousness that religion provides (and which most evidence suggests does not exist?))

I think the ghost in the machine theory is spread more by popular culture than by religion. I have heard exactly one sermon on the subject in my life (last September) and the preacher preached that the idea was foreign to the new testament.

InfraRedBucket wrote: ↑ Yep, the scientific basis for things like the collective unconscious is probably non existent , except ,as with a lot of Jung
as useful descriptive metaphor: eg anima, animus etc

I don't know about the scientific basis, but I would be pretty astonished if there weren't a common set of evolved brain structures which human beings use to make sense of stories and story-telling. We do know that dreaming has a long evolutionary history, and it would make sense for storytelling to make use of older structures used for dreaming.

B.

#5659

_100375698_dodd-shutterstock (1).jpg: (20.44 KiB) Downloaded 158 times

20170424-0us2Ytc6WP3NndATExff.jpg: (89.98 KiB) Downloaded 158 times

1490980379641.png: (137.66 KiB) Downloaded 161 times

#5660

DrokkIt wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑ Question - updated: "Dr. Pterson, I believe that religion is a human creation that helps us understand our hidden sub-conscious mind and complex emotions and that there is really nothing supernatural involved. Can you comment on this idea?"
Why not just go with "Dr. Peterson, do you believe Jesus was a factual historical person who literally died and returned to life?"

Then when he replies with "depends on what you mean by 'factual historical' and 'literally" you remove an envelope with those words written in it and get someone to read it out. Viola!

And dress for the part.

carnac.jpg: (65.8 KiB) Downloaded 157 times

#5661

DrokkIt wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑ Question - updated: "Dr. Pterson, I believe that religion is a human creation that helps us understand our hidden sub-conscious mind and complex emotions and that there is really nothing supernatural involved. Can you comment on this idea?"
Why not just go with "Dr. Peterson, do you believe Jesus was a factual historical person who literally died and returned to life?"

Then when he replies with "depends on what you mean by 'factual historical' and 'literally" you remove an envelope with those words written in it and get someone to read it out. Viola!

And dress for the part.

carnac.jpg

#5662

WTF

carnac.jpg: (65.8 KiB) Downloaded 160 times

#5663

WTF^1600

#5664

Shatterface wrote: ↑ I'm not sure why anyone needs to be a better person unless they were pretty shitty to begin with. I have absolutely no desire to improve myself morally. I don't go out of my way to harm others and that's good enough for me. If rather be smarter or happier. People who are smart and happy tend to behave more morally anyway. Stupid and angry people are responsible for most of the world's problems, particularly when they are under the delusion they are being good.

Just because I want to improve myself morally doesn't mean I am pretty shitty to begin with. Some people like you are comfortable just skating by... that's a personality thing. I find this to be too hollow. Maybe I am just fooling myself... but I can't help it. When I just skate by... even for a few days, I get depressed and anxious.

#5665

#5666

Shatterface wrote: ↑ What if you have to cross a river in a rowing boat and there's only room for one passenger at a time and you can't leave the SocJus alone with Peterson as he'll be triggered? Who do you drown first, Chopra or the SocJus?

Chopra, cuz the Socjus will eagerly pitch in. All while Peterson sits on a rock watching and explains why Nietzche predicted your depravity.

Guest_d2e60302 · #5667

"TruePundit" has cracked the Mandalay Bay shooting

https://truepundit.com/fbi-insiders-blo ... -massacre/

Apparently Steven Paddock was part of an ISIS/Antifa cell.

The FBI is actively covering this up because... Well, TruePundit will tell us that in the coming weeks.

#5668

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
Shatterface wrote: ↑ What if you have to cross a river in a rowing boat and there's only room for one passenger at a time and you can't leave the SocJus alone with Peterson as he'll be triggered? Who do you drown first, Chopra or the SocJus?
Chopra, cuz the Socjus will eagerly pitch in. All while Peterson sits on a rock watching and explains why Nietzche predicted your depravity.

Depends on what you mean by "river", depends on what you mean by "room" -and how tidy is this room exactly? It'll be utter chaos under the bloody neomarxists, and that's that!

#5669

This is the depth of thinking we are faced with.

#5670

In case my bookmarks get wiped out in the inevitable coming purge - here's a youtube channel collecting documentarys, book reviews and interviews...

https://www.youtube.com/user/thefilmarchives/videos

Of interest to some, maybe...

#5671

A tweet by Maajid Nawaz
Finally - to bar @Lauren_Southern from the UK for distributing a leaflet in Luton that stated “Allah is gay” (this is not a racist statement) may also be the first time UK border control have enforced medieval Islamic blasphemy law & medieval Islamic homophobia in one clean sweep

#5672

John D wrote: ↑
Shatterface wrote: ↑ I'm not sure why anyone needs to be a better person unless they were pretty shitty to begin with. I have absolutely no desire to improve myself morally. I don't go out of my way to harm others and that's good enough for me. If rather be smarter or happier. People who are smart and happy tend to behave more morally anyway. Stupid and angry people are responsible for most of the world's problems, particularly when they are under the delusion they are being good.
Just because I want to improve myself morally doesn't mean I am pretty shitty to begin with. Some people like you are comfortable just skating by... that's a personality thing. I find this to be too hollow. Maybe I am just fooling myself... but I can't help it. When I just skate by... even for a few days, I get depressed and anxious.

I didn't say you were shitty. I just don't see the big deal about improving myself morally.

Would it really improve other people's lives or just make me feel better than everyone else?

#5673

DrokkIt wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:47 am

John D wrote: ↑ Question - updated: "Dr. Pterson, I believe that religion is a human creation that helps us understand our hidden sub-conscious mind and complex emotions and that there is really nothing supernatural involved. Can you comment on this idea?"
Why not just go with "Dr. Peterson, do you believe Jesus was a factual historical person who literally died and returned to life?"

Then when he replies with "depends on what you mean by 'factual historical' and 'literally" you remove an envelope with those words written in it and get someone to read it out. Viola!

He more or less addressed this directly last night. Paraphrasing, the question of factual history can be put to one side, it's unimportant. What's important is the psychological truth of the event. The tale of Christ is the ultimate tale of the worst life can throw at you: maximum punishment on the perfectly innocent. In the face of the truth that life can and will deal out terrible suffering on people who don't deserve it, that Christ accepted this burden voluntarily is the only correct way to live. The alternative is to be bitter and resentful or to withdraw from the world.

#5674

Shatterface wrote: ↑I didn't say you were shitty. I just don't see the big deal about improving myself morally.

Would it really improve other people's lives or just make me feel better than everyone else?

I don't think that's the question. The question is how do you behave when your daughter is put into psychological care because her polyamorous relationship isn't working out, or you lose an eye due to cancer. It would be easy to become bitter and resentful. That's pretty much the problem with SocJus. There are real problems that SocJus have correctly identified. The worst SocJus people have become so twisted by these real problems, they are prepared to destroy all civilisation no matter how much damage that would do to innocents.

#5675

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:35 am
TW: Puke-inducing SJW self flagellation/humble bragging:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... hanged-me/

I've come to the realization that, not only is Pat Green the condensation of all SJW vices into one human, he is pathologically, mentally ill on a Dan-Arel level.

Matt, you really are a glutton for punishment with your daily wade through the sewers that is Patheos (Non Religious).

I presume smug twats such as wmdKitty are there, thinking they rule the roost and it is their patch. Fucking cunts.

#5676

#5677

Keating wrote: ↑
DrokkIt wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:47 am

John D wrote: ↑ Question - updated: "Dr. Pterson, I believe that religion is a human creation that helps us understand our hidden sub-conscious mind and complex emotions and that there is really nothing supernatural involved. Can you comment on this idea?"
Why not just go with "Dr. Peterson, do you believe Jesus was a factual historical person who literally died and returned to life?"

Then when he replies with "depends on what you mean by 'factual historical' and 'literally" you remove an envelope with those words written in it and get someone to read it out. Viola!
He more or less addressed this directly last night. Paraphrasing, the question of factual history can be put to one side, it's unimportant. What's important is the psychological truth of the event. The tale of Christ is the ultimate tale of the worst life can throw at you: maximum punishment on the perfectly innocent. In the face of the truth that life can and will deal out terrible suffering on people who don't deserve it, that Christ accepted this burden voluntarily is the only correct way to live. The alternative is to be bitter and resentful or to withdraw from the world.

Then he didnt address the question. For a start, that's only only interpretation hes given , among many possible.
Not all of them ultimately positive.
Myths can be interpreted in many ways, That's not really a great insight.
Millions of people relay on the belief that these people were actually historical figures doing supernatural things
like rising from the dead with a hot line to a "creator". Take away the supernatural and the promise of immortality and you just have stories.

#5678

I don't think I've heard him address the resurrection, only the crucification.

#5679

Keating wrote: ↑ He more or less addressed this directly last night. Paraphrasing, the question of factual history can be put to one side, it's unimportant. What's important is the psychological truth of the event. The tale of Christ is the ultimate tale of the worst life can throw at you: maximum punishment on the perfectly innocent. In the face of the truth that life can and will deal out terrible suffering on people who don't deserve it, that Christ accepted this burden voluntarily is the only correct way to live. The alternative is to be bitter and resentful or to withdraw from the world.

But then, if the factual history isn't important, what's so special about the story of Jesus? Buddha more or less did the same, accept the horrible reality of the world and carrying on. Why is Jesus' story better than Buddha's story?

Hell, if factual historicity isn't important, there are countless examples of innocents being punished by carrying on fighting for what they think is right in fiction.

Just to make an e xample, Batman saw his innocent parents being killed before him for little to no reason. That's probably even worse than being unjustly sentenced to death, in terms of survivor's guilt, especially since Bruce Wayne was just a child when this happened, so he obviously blamed himself (while Jesus was an adult when he was unjustly sentenced to death, so he could rationalize what happened as being the product of the flaws of those who sentenced him). Yet, while he struggles, Batman never becomes a bitter, resentful shell, instead he adheres to extremely high moral standards (never killing anyone, not even a complete psycho like the Joker) and fights to improve the world by understanding the psyche of tormented individuals and bringing them down without executing them.

So why is Jesus better than Batman?

#5680

Do you think he'd give a direct answer if someone asked him about the resurrection?

#5681

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:54 pm
But then, if the factual history isn't important, what's so special about the story of Jesus? Buddha more or less did the same, accept the horrible reality of the world and carrying on. Why is Jesus' story better than Buddha's story?

In his lecture series, he does address the Budda origin story and says it's more or less the same as the Christ story. The reason he raises Christianity is because Christianity is tied to Western civilisation.

At any rate, I should make clear that I'm making Peterson's case here. I think there's a fair amount of "truth" (or maybe wisdom is a better word) to what he says, but I'm not entirely sold.

#5682

I was going to make the same point about Batman. I can accept we all need stories but why do we have to pretend they are true? Is Shakespeare less meaningful just because we know he made shit up?

#5683

So why is Jesus better than Batman?

If it weren't for Jesus' superpowers and him actually being God Batman would kick his ass. Take away divine privilege and Batman is far better, especiall as he doesn't have the whiny martyr schtick. :angelic-halofell:

#5684

Shatterface wrote: ↑
John D wrote: ↑
Shatterface wrote: ↑ I'm not sure why anyone needs to be a better person unless they were pretty shitty to begin with. I have absolutely no desire to improve myself morally. I don't go out of my way to harm others and that's good enough for me. If rather be smarter or happier. People who are smart and happy tend to behave more morally anyway. Stupid and angry people are responsible for most of the world's problems, particularly when they are under the delusion they are being good.
Just because I want to improve myself morally doesn't mean I am pretty shitty to begin with. Some people like you are comfortable just skating by... that's a personality thing. I find this to be too hollow. Maybe I am just fooling myself... but I can't help it. When I just skate by... even for a few days, I get depressed and anxious.
I didn't say you were shitty. I just don't see the big deal about improving myself morally.

Would it really improve other people's lives or just make me feel better than everyone else?

Okay cool... I misunderstood... which I realize is not all the rare for me. Further however, I don't think there is anything wrong with trying to do things that make me feel like I am better than others.

#5685

I don't think Peterson would disagree with that point. In a different question last night, he explicitly said that we require novelty in our story telling, but to be meaningful, they end up being variations on a theme. Or to put it another way, the modern stories that we find most meaningful are the ones that echo the Christ story.

#5686

Keating wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:54 pm
But then, if the factual history isn't important, what's so special about the story of Jesus? Buddha more or less did the same, accept the horrible reality of the world and carrying on. Why is Jesus' story better than Buddha's story?
In his lecture series, he does address the Budda origin story and says it's more or less the same as the Christ story. The reason he raises Christianity is because Christianity is tied to Western civilisation.

At any rate, I should make clear that I'm making Peterson's case here. I think there's a fair amount of "truth" (or maybe wisdom is a better word) to what he says, but I'm not entirely sold.

I think Peterson manipulates the meaning of truth in his noggin so that he doesn't have to tackle problems with integrating his ideas with a materialist interpretation.

#5687

Keating wrote: ↑
Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:54 pm
But then, if the factual history isn't important, what's so special about the story of Jesus? Buddha more or less did the same, accept the horrible reality of the world and carrying on. Why is Jesus' story better than Buddha's story?
In his lecture series, he does address the Budda origin story and says it's more or less the same as the Christ story. The reason he raises Christianity is because Christianity is tied to Western civilisation.

At any rate, I should make clear that I'm making Peterson's case here. I think there's a fair amount of "truth" (or maybe wisdom is a better word) to what he says, but I'm not entirely sold.

I think that he's giving an interesting interpretation of the appeal of Christianity to some people, the idea of having a symbolic role-model for your life based on accepting hardship. Not all Christians interpret the Jesus story like this, but some definitely could.

Hell, many "cafeteria" Muslims are all about having an interpretation of all 'Mo to be a stern and strong but forgiving and fair warrior who never gave up in face of danger. These are the people that are genuinely convinced that jihad only means effort and struggle (not the fakes like Linda Sarsour who know VERY well that there's more to that, but pretend to be moderate to fool gullible kaffirs) The Fair FIghter Mohammed is more or less the same to Peterson's Jesus, only with more swords and less crucifixions.

However those interpretations aren't exactly mainstream. Mainstream islam is about the idea that everything in the Qu'ran is the literal world of God. Mainstream Christianity is about the idea that Jesus is the literal son of God, also part of God (which I still find nonsensical and funny) and that he literally rose from the dead.

#5688

So Red Sparrow was enjoyable. There's something for everyone; JLaw nudity for you straight guys and bi gals, a gratuitous penis shot that my husband appreciated, and Charlotte Rampling for me- I could listen to her read the dictionary and I'd think she was amazing.

#5689

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
So why is Jesus better than Batman?
If it weren't for Jesus' superpowers and him actually being God Batman would kick his ass. Take away divine privilege and Batman is far better, especiall as he doesn't have the whiny martyr schtick. :angelic-halofell:

Batman took down Darkseid, a literal god, without any superpowers, only his wits, money, technological gadgets and some preparation time. Give him a month to prepare and he'll take down Jesus too.

https://static2.cbrimages.com/wp-conten ... 0&fit=crop

#5690

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
So why is Jesus better than Batman?
If it weren't for Jesus' superpowers and him actually being God Batman would kick his ass. Take away divine privilege and Batman is far better, especiall as he doesn't have the whiny martyr schtick. :angelic-halofell:
Batman took down Darkseid, a literal god, without any superpowers, only his wits, money, technological gadgets and some preparation time. Give him a month to prepare and he'll take down Jesus too.

https://static2.cbrimages.com/wp-conten ... 0&fit=crop

Pfft. No need to send Batman to do that. A few average Roman legionaries more than handled that job already.

#5691

CommanderTuvok wrote: ↑
Matt Cavanaugh wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:35 am
TW: Puke-inducing SJW self flagellation/humble bragging:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/transparen ... hanged-me/

I've come to the realization that, not only is Pat Green the condensation of all SJW vices into one human, he is pathologically, mentally ill on a Dan-Arel level.
Matt, you really are a glutton for punishment with your daily wade through the sewers that is Patheos (Non Religious).

I presume smug twats such as wmdKitty are there, thinking they rule the roost and it is their patch. Fucking cunts.

I've never seen WMDK there, usually just that pompous windbag, John Pierot or the narcissistic autogynephile (and poisonous plant) Foxglove. TP Pat doesn't get much comment traffic, in no small part due to his ban hammer.

I just check this crap when taking breathers, and actually got a shitload done outside today, for example cutting down more trees than Lawrence Krauss has accusers.

#5692

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ Batman took down Darkseid, a literal god, without any superpowers, only his wits, money, technological gadgets and some preparation time. Give him a month to prepare and he'll take down Jesus too.

Joseph of Arimathea got it done in one afternoon.

#5693

katamari Damassi wrote: ↑ So Red Sparrow was enjoyable. There's something for everyone; JLaw nudity for you straight guys and bi gals, a gratuitous penis shot that my husband appreciated, and Charlotte Rampling for me- I could listen to her read the dictionary and I'd think she was amazing.

Does the movie provide moral principles by which we can live our lives and become better human beings?

#5694

Been taking a look at the Pettibone/Sellner kerfuffle, and if half of what they say is true, then the UK has no hope at all any more. It's either going to become completely Goatfucker Central, or there will be a civil war. To be honest, I hope the latter.

The population as a whole have been sold down the river by a couple of generations of self-loathing, white-guilt-ridden knobheads who should have been drowned or strangled at birth. I left in 2002, and even though Nyoo Laybur weren't at the height of their insanity and hatred for normal people, the writing was on the wall.

Since it will probably be worse than useless in most countries in the future, I think I'm going to give up my UK citizenship, wipe my arse on the passport and send it to Tony Blair.

#5695

My moral exemplar is probably Dexter Morgan. As I've gotten older I've grown to accept I'll never be a perfect human being but I can limit the damage I do to innocent people so long as there are real assholes to vent on. That means you, Myers, you shitbearded twat.

#5696

What is a 'gratuitous penis shot' anyway?

Is it like what RoboCop does to that rapist?

#5697

Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ Mainstream Christianity is about the idea that Jesus is the literal son of God, also part of God (which I still find nonsensical and funny) and that he literally rose from the dead.

That's not quite how it works. Mainstream (Nicene) Christianity says that the Son (the logos, the mediator between God the father and creation) was "begotten of the Father before all worlds." What it means by "begotten" isn't really all that clear except that it means "not created" - the Son is understood to be equally the one God with the Father and this relation is non-temporal.

The incarnation is a separate issue - Jesus is supposed to be the perfect human, therefore the perfect image of God, therefore the Son incarnate, therefore God. Of course it is supposed to be expressed the other way: God the Son incarnate -->perfect image of God --> the perfect human.

Certainly the rising from the dead is meant to be literal, though as Jordan Peterson (among others) points out - there are very odd features to the resurrection appearances in the Gospels.

B

Guest_d2e60302 · #5698

Keating wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:13 pm
I don't think Peterson would disagree with that point. In a different question last night, he explicitly said that we require novelty in our story telling, but to be meaningful, they end up being variations on a theme. Or to put it another way, the modern stories that we find most meaningful are the ones that echo the Christ story.

Christ Story = Cinderella

Vonnegut, and so it goes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d757ffca67

#5699

It's not Great Britain... it's Small Britain.... Little Britain.

#5700

Shatterface wrote: ↑
katamari Damassi wrote: ↑ So Red Sparrow was enjoyable. There's something for everyone; JLaw nudity for you straight guys and bi gals, a gratuitous penis shot that my husband appreciated, and Charlotte Rampling for me- I could listen to her read the dictionary and I'd think she was amazing.
Does the movie provide moral principles by which we can live our lives and become better human beings?

What part of JLaw naked don't you get?